Yes, actually, we do. Well, I can only speak for myself, and I certainly do.

Troy Brown did it.

This is one of the problems at the heart of the inflating of Welker's talent - the idea that quantity of receptions is a meaningful stat. It isn't. It is utterly meaningless. Any receiver could catch 200 passes per season if a team force fed him the ball. It's what a receiver does with the receptions that is important. Nobody is arguing for Welker's legitimacy with yardage, big play ability, or touchdowns.

Hand-eye coordination? From a receiver with lousy hands for a receiver, lacking the ability to catch balls away from his frame and having to body catch nearly everything?

Discipline? Intangible alert, Intangible Alert! When you have no argument for what an athlete actually does well, resort to inventing invisible qualities to justify the defense and to use as an argument against the possibility that he's really not that good a player, but rather a product of the system.

What is this "discipline" you are claiming he possesses? He doesn't ignore the play calling and does what he's supposed to do? Wow, put him in Canton, now.

Discipline as in route running and knowing the open areas on the field. It's not an intangible - it is a talent. Troy Brown had one year with 100+ receptions - Welker has had 5 100+ reception seasons. Those receptions are not meaningless either - they are usually first downs to move the chains...to sustain drives - you know - the whole point of the game.

I am sure 6 years ago you thought Chris Chambers was one of those amazing WRs you like to FAP so much over and he had less receiving yards than Welker. Yet he had all these physical attributes that just made him better...hmmm both playing on the same team yet Welker was just as good if not better.

Discipline as in route running and knowing the open areas on the field. It's not an intangible - it is a talent. Troy Brown had one year with 100+ receptions - Welker has had 5 100+ reception seasons.

Discipline as in route running? Sorry, but "discipline" is not synonymous with "route running." If you wanted to say "route running," (to art of running patterns to separate from coverage), you should have said, "route running." You used "discipline" because it's an intangible and "nobody can prove it wrong!!!111"

Troy Brown had a year with 101 receptions and a year with 97 receptions in only 14 games, as well as a year with 83 receptions. And he was a journeyman-caliber #3 at best prior to Belichick's arrival.

Quote:

Those receptions are not meaningless either - they are usually first downs to move the chains...to sustain drives - you know - the whole point of the game.

Usually? Only 57.2% of Welker's career receptions have gone for a 1st down. That's "more often than not," but I wouldn't use the word, "usually."

By the way, that's a low percentage for a wide receiver.

And no, the whole point of the game is to score more points than the other team, and an offense's job is to score points (as well as not put the defense in bad positions by turning the ball over). It takes Welker 1.5 times as many catches to do the same things real elite receivers do. 8 catches for 80 yards is not better than 1 catch for 80 yards and a touchdown. The guy who gets the 80 yard touchdown just got the equivalent to 8 first downs, so his offense didn't have to...and put points on the board. Welker doesn't do that.

Quote:

I am sure 6 years ago you thought Chris Chambers was one of those amazing WRs you like to FAP so much over and he had less receiving yards than Welker. Yet he had all these physical attributes that just made him better...hmmm both playing on the same team yet Welker was just as good if not better.

Welker had 10 more yards and 3 fewer TDs than Chambers in 2006. I'll take Chambers's 2006 season over Welker's, thank you.

If I thought Chambers was "amazing" back in 2006, I was basing it on what he'd done in the past.

So if the Patriots had Calvin Johnson, Tom Brady would throw for...5500 yards? 6000?

I must have missed when I said, "if everyone can do what Calvin Johnson can do, why isn't there a Calvin Johnson on every team?"

Again, someone completely misses the point of my ability to completely discredit all these lame arguments defending Welker. I'm not the one making these lame arguments in justifying a player's ability and saying he's not a product of a system.

And to answer your question - no. But Brady's yards per pass attempt and yards per pass completion averages would shoot up and the Patriots would score even more points, putting teams away more easily and winning even more games...much like when they had Randy Moss in 2007.

Quote:

Would it be beneficial to teams like that to stop throwing to receivers short as much as they do, and instead get more long completions to Calvin?

Yes, it would. It sure as hell wouldn't hurt.

Offenses score points in bunches when they can score more quickly, and getting bigger chunks of yards is the key to that. If you have to feed Welker the ball 120 times for him to get even close to Calvin Johnson's production (not this year, though), or get even Top 10 WR production...it's going to slow down your ability to get it to the endzone.

Quote:

Maybe every team does have a Calvin, but many of them are more like the 2009 Lions than the 2011-2012 Lions. Ever think of that?

Again, someone completely misses the point of my ability to completely discredit all these lame arguments defending Welker. I'm not the one making these lame arguments in justifying a player's ability and saying he's not a product of a system.

Maybe it's more likely that you're not "completely discrediting" people's arguments and instead making a fool of yourself. Did you ever consider that? Or maybe it's just that your zomg YPC, screens/drags argument is just so nuanced that it's flying over everybody's head.

Maybe it's more likely that you're not "completely discrediting" people's arguments and instead making a fool of yourself. Did you ever consider that? Or maybe it's just that your zomg YPC, screens/drags argument is just so nuanced that it's flying over everybody's head.

That's rich. The person who can't even stay in a debate without getting completely lost, as you just did, is accusing me of making a fool of myself.

Nobody has any good answer for how Welker's average distance from the line of scrimmage for his career on his receptions is 5.4. Nobody has any good answer for Julian Edelman doing the same things in Welker's place every time it came up. They just plug their ears and shout, "small sample size!"

It's blatantly obvious to anyone who watches and understands the game that Welker is not a special receiver in any way. And it's similarly obvious to those of us who get it that Calvin Johnson is.

Scoring faster isn't necessarily better. In most cases, scoring on a higher percentage of your drives is, overall, far better than having the potential to score quickly. Welker is a much better contributor to the higher percentage of scoring drives than Calvin Johnson.

Welker is great in short area quickness. The thing with Edelman (who hasn't been nearly as productive) is that he is also very good in that area. It's not a "anyone can do it" type of thing. The Pats just have two guys that are very good at it. Edelman hasn't been all that productive because he and Brady have never had very good timing (it's looked a lot better this year).

That's rich. The person who can't even stay in a debate without getting completely lost, as you just did, is accusing me of making a fool of myself.

Nobody has any good answer for how Welker's average distance from the line of scrimmage for his career on his receptions is 5.4. Nobody has any good answer for Julian Edelman doing the same things in Welker's place every time it came up. They just plug their ears and shout, "small sample size!"

It's blatantly obvious to anyone who watches and understands the game that Welker is not a special receiver in any way. And it's similarly obvious to those of us who get it that Calvin Johnson is.

There is no need for a refute to that distance from the LOS stat. I've shown in video clips that you didn't bother to address that the distance from the LOS is irrelevant when Welker uses good route running to get open in those short short areas. I've also provided clips of him doing damage down the field with good route running. He catches an above average amount of slip screens, and on a 3rd and 2 type play they'll run a play that gets enough for the first down that will hurt that number. Randomly throwing out a stat shows nothing about a guy's skill level.

I've demonstrated actual skill that Welker has displayed on the field. All you've done is spew nonsense from looking at a stat sheet and making up the kinds of routes the Patriots offense consists of. Julian Edelman has failed to develop as a WR. My fellow Patriots fans and I have seen this. He is a good talent, and I think he can still be a good slot receiver in the NFL. However he doesn't have as good of a grasp on choice routes and doesn't catch the ball as well as Welker. I've actually seen the Houston, Baltimore, and Jets game that you so often refer to, and I've also seen every other game he's played in. Every single knowledgeable Patriots poster agrees with me, but somehow your level of football acumen is so high that you see something that we don't, despite the high likelihood that you didn't even see any of those games.

I guess if we follow your logic and dismiss all the attributes that Welker possesses as being irrelevant to being a good receiver, then yes Welker isn't a good receiver. However, the rest of us live in reality.

haha really I think despite all his bitching, the answer everyone but him has to this topic is a resounding yes. He can kick and scream all he want but yes, Welker is a good skill player, and I'm not even a huge Welker fan after last years SB.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by WMD

Jesse realizing Walt was Santa Claus could really shake things up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

I don't know how old you are, but if you can get to 24/25 without getting arrested or killed, you've done well for yourself lol.

Scoring faster isn't necessarily better. In most cases, scoring on a higher percentage of your drives is, overall, far better than having the potential to score quickly. Welker is a much better contributor to the higher percentage of scoring drives than Calvin Johnson.

You can't even make that argument. Calvin Johnson had more catches and many more first downs this year than Welker.

It's not to Welker's credit that the Patriots can punch it in more easily (Welker isn't a big touchdown scorer). The Patriots' team does that. The Lions, on the other hand? Not so much. Calvin had a down year in scoring touchdowns, but he scored 16 last year and is obviously a big time TD scorer when used properly (12 TDs in two other seasons).

Quote:

Welker is great in short area quickness. The thing with Edelman (who hasn't been nearly as productive) is that he is also very good in that area. It's not a "anyone can do it" type of thing. The Pats just have two guys that are very good at it. Edelman hasn't been all that productive because he and Brady have never had very good timing (it's looked a lot better this year).

Even without arguing semantics over your claim that he and Edelman (what a coincidence that it's an UDFA and a 7th round pick who have these supposedly "rare" skills) have great short area quickness, here are some other receivers with obvious short area quickness:

Does Jordan just make up what he thinks people are saying in retaliation to him?

God, you're so unbelievably obnoxious.

You know, that would be awfully hard seeing as I respond directly to quotes, as opposed to just putting words in people's mouths. That's more your style.

Ironically, there have been nonstop straw man arguments in this thread aimed at me ("you said Welker SUCKS," "you said Welker is completely useless," etc.). But of course, you accuse me of being the one who "makes up what I think people are saying in retaliation to me." Priceless.